Applying Lateral Wisdom to Personal, Organizational, and Church Learning

Organizational Learning

February 28, 2011

If you want to your organization to be able to adapt and change, then your organization needs to get all people “learning” in the same direction. You need to achieve Dynamic Learning Alignment.

Dynamic Learning Alignment- DLA is reached when the people in your organization are all simultaneously learning what the organization needs to know to succeed in an ever-changing environment.

DLA is learning for the current environmental needs while at the same time learning to prepare for future challenges and opportunities.

DLA requires TriDextrous Learning. Learners prepare for their work, projects, and challenges by learning before directly addressing the work, learning during the work, and learning after the work has been completed. The learner learns about past problems and solutions, current problems and solutions, and also learns about potential future problems and solutions.

When DLA is reached in your organization, all your people will be learning for current and future success in an ever-changing and increasingly complex environment.

DLA enables an organization to become and remain incredibly flexible and adaptable. If your organization is built to change then it is built to learn –

February 16, 2011

The Big Shift has large implications for both organizational learning and, possibly even more significantly, personal learning. The Big Shift is creating an environment in which our current knowledge is quickly becoming perishable. And this fact is going to require that we not only become life-long learners, but rapid learners.

Personal Implications of the Big Shift

“We discover, to our dismay, that the significant investments we made in education in the early part of our lives was just the beginning. In order to stay successful in a world of accelerating change, we need to find ways to learn faster, often in areas that we once viewed as quite peripheral to our professions.”

“What we knew yesterday—either as employees or in terms of what our institutions as a whole knows about its business—is proving to be less and less helpful with the challenges and opportunities we confront today.”

What we learn is quickly becoming perishable. Static knowledge has an important and valuable role, but things are changing so fast, and we are being called upon to do more and more, so we need to develop a stream or flow of rapid tacit knowledge acquisition.

Most of the new things we will need to learn are best learned while working with others, not from a textbook or lecture. You need a network and people to collaborate with, to co-create new knowledge and to learn from. You need the tacit knowledge that comes from collaborating and learning from others. A book can’t teach you how to ride a bike. A lecture cannot prepare you to take your first swim in a pool. This is tacit knowledge that must be experienced to learn.

And here is the key. Our current environment is asking us to solve an ever increasing array of complex problems, many of which cannot be solved through the simple explicit knowledge which we learned or currently posses, but rather tacit knowledge that is hard to explain and is learned through experience and often directly from the various people and connections in our personal networks.

So to keep our knowledge fresh we must be rapid learners of tacit knowledge. In other words, we must learn experientially from the source.

In my mind, it's the similar to the differences between a search engine and a network.

February 08, 2011

During times of collaboration, do people consider your ideas good enough to "subscribe" to or do they just scan, skip, or even worse, consider them "spam?"

One of my favorite blogs is Lateral Action. Contributing writer Rajesh Setty posted about whether bloggers, Twitters, etc., could know if their ideas were succeeding in influencing their audiences in a positive way. His idea is that the audience would “tell them” by the manner in which they responded to the online content.

This got me thinking about how we know if the ideas we share in team meetings, staff meetings, etc., are influencing the "audience" of our co-workers or team members. Are they responding to what I am saying. Are they listening or ignoring me? Are they subscribing to my ideas and sharing them? Or do they simply see my ideas as "spam" in the conversation?

In many ways...how we react to the ideas we hear during times of collaboration is similar to how we respond to the content we encounter daily on the web.

Great ideas engage us. We hear great ideas and then want to leverage them. Some ideas transform the way we think about a topic or problem. And some ideas just waste our time.

What I found interesting, is this closely mirrors how we tend to collaborate with each other.

Rajesh suggests there is 9 ways people respond to content. Spam, Skip, Scan, Stop, Save, Shift, Send, Spread, and Subscribe. Remixing these, I found there are 9 ways we respond to ideas when we collaborate in our teams.

1. Spam:“If your content does not provide a reasonable ROII (return-on-investment for an interaction) for the reader or is self-serving or simply useless, the reader will mark it as spam. Posting something that may be assessed, as “spam” is the fastest way to losing credibility.”

If your ideas, thoughts and comments do not provide any benefit to your team, or worse, seem self-serving as opposed to meeting the needs of your team or organization, you are going to lose credibility as a member. Make a contribution through collaboration that benefits the team and the organization.

2. Skip: “The reader makes an assessment that he or she won’t lose much by reading it. In this case, the reader has not written you off yet but if you consistently create content that is worth “skipping,” the reader might write you off.”

The worst thing that can happen to you as team member is to have others stop listening and stop giving any consideration to your ideas, thoughts, and comments. If you consistently fail to add to the discussion in a positive way, or focus on yourself instead of the issue at hand, the organizational needs, etc., people are going to consider your ideas, thoughts and comments worth skipping.

“Skipping” is a failure in collaboration.

3. Scan:“The reader thinks there are only a few parts that are of relevance and wants to get right to the core of the content and skip the rest.”

Cut to the chase. The most valuable resource for your staff is their time. Don’t waste people’s time. Effectively collaborate by getting to the point, being succinct, staying on topic, driving to the core of the issue, and providing possible solutions or ideas to the issue at hand. If you want team members to stop, focus, consider your ideas, and collaborate on them--get to the core quickly.

4. Stop: “The reader is touched by the article and stops to think about the article, it’s relevance and what it means to him or her personally and professionally.”

During team meetings our sharing goal should be to get members to "hear" things that make them stop, take notice, and want to dig deeper. Great ideas, meaningful comments, powerful solutions make teams stop, think, and collaborate to create impact for the organization.5. Save:“The content is so good that the reader might want to re-visit this multiple times.”

Smart teams will save great ideas and revisit them. Smart teams will save the best ideas and look for ways to use and apply them in new situations. Knowledge Management should focus on content that is so good your organization will want to revisit it.

6. Shift:“The article is transformational. The reader is so deeply affected (in a positive way) by the article that it shifts some of their values and beliefs. In other words, this piece of writing will transform the reader and make him or her grow.”

An important aspect of any organization or team is the word “learning.” Learning teams and organizations are always learning from each other, from current research, from experience, etc. Learning teams and organization adjust or shift what they do, how they do it, or what they know when they apply what they have learned.

7. Send:“The content is not only useful to the reader but also to one or more people in the reader’s network. The reader simply emails the article or a link to it to people that he or she cares.”

When learning organizations or teams learn something of value, they share it with others to make a bigger impact for the organization. Sharing knowledge, ideas, and solutions by “sending” them on to others in their networks is what learning organizations or teams do. It is at the heart of collaboration.

8. Spread:“The reader finds the article fascinating enough to spread it to anyone and everyone via a blog, twitter or the social networks that he or she belongs.”

Spreading ideas through our networks is a characteristic of a learning organization. Technology should be viewed as a natural part of how it works. You should take the time to spread ideas through your organization and networks. Learning organizations and teams spread smart ideas.

9. Subscribe:“This is the ultimate expression of engagement and a vote of confidence that you will continue to provide great content. When the reader wants to continue listening to your thoughts, he or she will subscribe.”

Subscribing is the end result of trust and credibility. All teams are more effective when there is trust. When you prove you are trust worthy, that you have knowledge and ability, and collaborate with your team, you become credible. Team members “subscribe” to credible team members.

Rajesh Setty gives a few more things to consider that are equally valuable for team collaboration.

1. Understand Your Audience“…your audience should be the center of the focus and not you. The more you know about your audience, the better you can connect with them.”

The better we can connect with each other in our teams, the better collaboration we will have, and the better results we will produce for students.

2. Check Your Objective

What is the purpose or goal of your team meeting? If you don’t know what you are walking in the door to discuss then you probably aren’t prepared. If you are not prepared you are not going to be able to add your best during collaboration. Know your objective.

3. Unleash Your Creativity

“You know the audience and you know the purpose... Now the next step is to unleash your creativity and create something that will generate the kind of response that you are looking for.”

Pay attention to the response and feedback you are getting from other members. Notice if they are spamming you, skipping you, scanning you, stopping for you, saving you, being shifted by you, sending you, spreading you, or subscribing to you. Reflect and then adjust your collaboration style to get the results you want.

It really comes down to having a high ROII,"Return on Investment for an Interaction."

January 25, 2011

Do your assumptions about what organizational learning should be leave you with a lack of alternatives?

One of the reasons why many people, including myself, love books like Freakonomics, Super Freakonomics, Predictably Irrational, or The Economic Naturalist is that is takes our assumptions about the world around us and stands them on their head. When what we assumed about our world is discovered to be incorrect, we must develop alternatives in our thinking and our approach to the world around us.

We have created a model of organizational and personal learning based on our assumptions about it. So let's consider our learning assumptions and models.

As part of the book The Organization Of The Future, James O’ Toole contributed an essay titled “Free To Choose: How American Managers Can Create Globally Competitive Workplaces” In his essay he describes 3 “Emerging Employer Models.” He describes them as follows:

Low-Cost Companies

They are paid at (or close to) the minimum wage.

They receive few if any benefits

They have no job security

They are given only the amount of training needed to do jobs that have been designed to be simple and easy to learn.

Global-Competitor Companies

Increasingly hire people on a contractual basis and, where possible, outsource and offshore work.

Offer their “contingent” workers no security beyond the time limits of their contracts, and no promises of a continuing employment relationship.

Often look outside to hire even permanent and top-level employees, carefully limiting how much they respond on developing managers and professionals, let alone on the training of workers.

Frequently offer “then new employment contract,” in which they commit to telling employees what their strategy is and where they think future jobs in the organization will be, and workers then are told that their continual employment depends on their performance and the fit between their skills and the needs of the business.

Are constantly searching for workers with the skills needed for today’s challenges. And although they pay top dollar for that talent, they expect employees to work long hours and, especially, to be productive.

High-Involvement Companies

Challenging and enriched jobs

A say in the management of their own tasks

A commitment to low turnover and few layoffs

A relatively egalitarian workplace, with few class distinctions between managers and workers and relatively small ratios between the salaries of the CEO and the average worker

Jobs organized in self-managing teams

A strong sense that every employee is a member of a supportive community

Extensive, ongoing training and education to all

Salaries rather than hourly wages

Employee participation in company stock ownership and a high share in company profits

O’ Toole advocates for the High-Involvement Company as the model of the future.

According to James O’ Toole, the most successful companies now and in the future will be those that choose to address the deepest needs of their employees.

• Financial resources and security• Meaningful work that offers the opportunity for human development• Supportive social relationships

So, to which model would the current system of organizational learning belong?

Does the current organizational model meet the 3 deepest needs of it's employees?

It is our assumptions about what learning is, where and when learning, teaching, and training takes place, and how learning systems should be organized, that control the current organizational face of learning. We have built what we assumed is the best model for delivery of instruction.

What, however, if those assumptions are wrong?

Have you ever considered the fact that the assumptions you make about what organizational learning is and what is should be are wrong?

As O’Toole puts it, “Remember, it was once widely assumed that no airline could trust its employees to decide how best to serve customers—until Southwest did. It one was assumed that no company in the discount retail industry could succeed while paying its employees decent salaries and offering them full benefits—until Costco did. It was assumed that poorly educated blue-collar workers in old-line manufacturing firms could not be taught managerial accounting and then left to be self-managing—until SRC Holdings did. Once the conventional wisdom was that employees must be closely supervised and governed by rules—until W.L. Gore proved otherwise. And it was assumed that the first thing a company must do in a financial crisis is to lay off workers—until Xilinx discovered alternatives.”

Are there alternatives to our current model?

Do your organization have learning alternatives? Are your organizational leaders willing to honestly explore them? William A. Foster said, “Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, intelligent direction and skillful execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives.” Is what we have built the "wise choice of many alternatives", or is it simply what we have ended up with?

Archibald MacLeish once said, "What is freedom? Freedom is the right to choose: the right to create for oneself the alternatives of choice." Will your organization and those in it ever have the freedom to develop and create alternatives to the current model. Will we be free to pursue the The High-Involvement Company or the Global-Competitor Company, as described by O' Toole, or a hybrid of the two, or even something not yet discovered?

As O’ Toole says, “The statement ‘I have no alternative’ is one of the surest indicators of leadership failure.”

Do any of these jump out at you? These are the signs of an organization that is having trouble learning.

I have been thinking a lot about #'s 6-9. Technology allows teams to connect to islands of expertise located in any geographic location. Technology allows teams to archive their learning and share with others. Knowing what others know and sharing what you have learned is what I refer to as Wisdom Stewardship. Technology makes it easy for individuals, teams, and organizations to be good stewards of available wisdom--to “Know What Others Know” (K.W.O.K.).

No staff knows how much they know until they know what each other knows. And I can guarantee that you know more than you think you know. (Read it again!)

Problems are another source of learning and knowledge in an organization.

New Problems = New Questions = New opportunities to share and collaborate = New learning = New Ideas = New solutions = New Knowledge

How is your organization doing?

Catalytic Questions:

What places are you failing to look for ideas or answers to problems?

In what ways could you get curious about what your staff knows?

How might your assumptions about knowledge and ideas be getting in the way of learning from your staff?

What if you were able to know everything your staff knows?

What might you have done in the past that could be applied to Idea and Knowledge Management with your team? With your organization?

What resources or solutions are available to you that you may have overlooked?

December 20, 2010

As part of the book The Organization Of The Future, James O’ Toole contributed an essay titled “Free To Choose: How American Managers Can Create Globally Competitive Workplaces” In his essay he describes 3 “Emerging Employer Models.” He describes them as follows:

Low-Cost Companies

They are paid at (or close to) the minimum wage.

They receive few if any benefits

They have no job security

They are given only the amount of training needed to do jobs that have been designed to be simple and easy to learn.

Global-Competitor Companies

Increasingly hire people on a contractual basis and, where possible, outsource and offshore work.

Offer their “contingent” workers no security beyond the time limits of their contracts, and no promises of a continuing employment relationship.

Often look outside to hire even permanent and top-level employees, carefully limiting how much they respond on developing managers and professionals, let alone on the training of workers.

Frequently offer “then new employment contract,” in which they commit to telling employees what their strategy is and where they think future jobs in the organization will be, and workers then are told that their continual employment depends on their performance and the fit between their skills and the needs of the business.

Are constantly searching for workers with the skills needed for today’s challenges. And although they pay top dollar for that talent, they expect employees to work long hours and, especially, to be productive.

High-Involvement Companies

Challenging and enriched jobs

A say in the management of their own tasks

A commitment to low turnover and few layoffs

A relatively egalitarian workplace, with few class distinctions between managers and workers and relatively small ratios between the salaries of the CEO and the average worker

Jobs organized in self-managing teams

A strong sense that every employee is a member of a supportive community

Extensive, ongoing training and education to all

Salaries rather than hourly wages

Employee participation in company stock ownership and a high share in company profits

O’ Toole advocates for the High-Involvement Company as the model of the future.

According to James O’ Toole, the most successful companies now and of the future will be those that choose to address the deepest needs of their employees. • Financial resources and security• Meaningful work that offers the opportunity for human development• Supportive social relationships

So, to which model would your organization belong to?

Is your organization so unique that none of the models described above apply? Is it a hybrid of one, two, or all of them? Could your organization "learn itself" into a "High-Involvement" model?

Assumptions about how to organizations, churches, school districts, and schools should be organized control the current organizational models. What, however, if those assumptions are wrong? Are there alternatives to our current model?

As O’Toole puts it, “Remember, it was once widely assumed that no airline could trust its employees to decide how best to serve customers—until Southwest did. It one was assumed that no company in the discount retail industry could succeed while paying its employees decent salaries and offering them full benefits—until Costco did. It was assumed that poorly educated blue-collar workers in old-line manufacturing firms could not be taught managerial accounting and then left to be self-managing—until SRC Holdings did. Once the conventional wisdom was that employees must be closely supervised and governed by rules—until W.L. Gore proved otherwise. And it was assumed that the first thing a company must do in a financial crisis is to lay off workers—until Xilinx discovered alternatives.”

Does education have alternatives? Are educational leaders willing to honestly explore them? Will union leaders allow for different assumptions.

As O’ Toole says, “The statement ‘I have no alternative’ is one of the surest indicators of leadership failure.”